Model-based prediction of water levels for the Great Lakes: a comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This comprehensive study addresses the correlation between water levels and meteorological features, including air temperature, evaporation, and precipitation, to accurately predict water levels in lakes within the Great Lakes basin. Various models, namely multiple linear regression (MLR), nonlinear autoregressive network with exogenous inputs (NARX), Facebook Prophet (FB-Prophet), and long short-term memory (LSTM), are employed to enhance predictions of lake water levels. Results indicate that all models, except for FB-Prophet, perform well, particularly for Lakes Erie, Huron-Michigan, and Superior. However, MLR and LSTM show reduced performance for Lakes Ontario and St. Clair. NARX emerges as the top performer across all lakes, with Lakes Erie and Superior exhibiting the lowest error metrics—root mean square error (RMSE: 0.048 and 0.034), mean absolute error (MAE: 0.036 and 0.026), mean absolute percent error (MAPE: 0.021% and 0.014%), and alongside the highest R-squared value (R 2 : 0.977 and 0.968), respectively. Similarly, for Lake Huron-Michigan, NARX demonstrates exceptional predictive precision with an RMSE (0.029), MAE (0.022), MAPE (0.013%), and an outstanding R 2 value of 0.995. Despite slightly higher error metrics, NARX consistently performs well for Lake Ontario. However, Lake St. Clair presents challenges for predictive performance across all models, with NARX maintaining relatively strong metrics with an RMSE (0.076), MAE (0.050), MAPE (0.029%), and R 2 (0.953), reaffirming its position as the leading model for water level prediction in the Great Lakes basin. The findings of this study suggest that the NARX model accurately predicts water levels, providing insights for managing water resources in the Great Lakes region.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".